Ridley Scott’s films are not always good. But you can be sure he, at the least, makes an effort to be interesting. It can be visual. It can be subject matter. It can be an interesting juxtaposition of actors. Even if the end result is less than expected; it at least seems like he tried.

Prometheus is more than just effort. It is a top shelf Sci-Fi film. Forget all the hints and the expectations as to what it is going to be (if you haven’t seen it yet). They will only lead to consternation or disappointment. If you just watch the film as a Sci-Fi film unencumbered with notions of it being any sort of “prequel” then you will leave the theater happy.

A critic friend also gave good advice on this film. See it in 3D on the largest screen you can. It is, if nothing else, a grand looking movie (and this does not refer to the brief shot of Charlize Theron in some sort of cloth g-string).

This is not a monster movie nor is it an action film. It is not Alien or Aliens (yes I am aware Scott didn't direct Aliens). There is action, there are (maybe) “monsters” but this is first and foremost a Sci-Fi thriller. You wonder what is going to happen. And some of the more obvious things you think are going to happen do not.

The choice of actors in the film—everyone is, essentially in a supporting role—is great. You have Charlize Theron as an ice queen. Idris Elba as a not so serious captain (his character is established in one 15 second shot early in the film). You have Guy Pearce covered in makeup. The ladies even get to see Logan Marshall-Green with his shirt off. Michael Fassbender does sort of steal the film, however.

Getting back to Scott as a director who swings for the fences (and sometimes whiffs): was there ever a more horrifying and riveting war movie than Black Hawk Down? A more iconic sci-fi film than Blade Runner? Gladiator was also a great, horrifically violent but somehow touching film. Thelma and Louise touched a nerve in the USA. Someone To Watch Over Me and Alien also have much to recommend them (the latter more than the former…ok a LOT more than the former).

But this same Mr. Scott also gave us the BRUTAL Hannibal and the dubious recent Robin Hood. Add to this G.I Jane and Kingdom of Heaven and you have someone who aims for the stars, someone whose films are BIG. Is there anything bigger than trying to get Anthony Hopkins to revisit Hannibal Lechter? Yes, it should have been let be but to even try it you need brass balls the size of grapefruit. Likewise, Kingdom of Heaven was a grand idea that somehow (can you say “Orlando Bloom”) fell apart despite all Jeremy Irons could do.

This all sounds like taking a hatchet to Scott but it isn’t. His failures are more interesting than a lot of other director’s successes.

And Prometheus is one of Scott’s unqualified successes. It has, honestly, been awhile since he has directed a movie that can be termed an unqualified success. Depending upon the standard applied it might be over a decade (the harshest standard). A film that moves, where the actors do bring life to characters with limited screen time and that looks fantastic, Prometheus should be the big hit of the summer (even if no one it the film is wearing tights).

There is something extremely likeable about Where Do We Go Now?, the Lebanese/French/Egyptian/Italian film about a small town divided between Christians and Muslims trying to get along in the midst of unrest in the outside world. The film is a sort of modern day Lysistrata but it is a tad less focused (to be charitable).

Directed and written by Lebanese actress Nadine Labaki, the movie focuses on the effort of women to keep sectarian violence from breaking out in their town. The town is isolated by a destroyed bridge that will only let a moped in and out. The women strive to keep the hot headed men from killing one another after religious tensions from outside flare and there are several incidents where a mosque and Christian religious icons are profaned. They try deceit; they try (improbably) hiring exotic dancers to distract the men and various other tricks. None of these seem to be particularly well conceived or effective. But this may be intentional. Getting the men under control seems like something of a fool’s errand.

It is probably best to think of this as allegory in any case.

The previews are a problem for this film—they make it seem like a wacky comedy. It isn’t. It has comic elements but these are subtle and not at all what the previews imply. This is a drama. Many scenes work. One scene where Labaki’s character, Amale, tells the men, fighting in her café to “go die at home” rings particularly true. And when the shamed men leave, she is left with her child—also a boy. Will he be part of the cycle? Labaki is a real presence on the screen and the acting is all professional and believable.

It is also a good idea to keep in mind that Westerners may not be the intended audience. Americans especially like neat films with all the loose ends tied up. In this film there is no “bad guy” and you never find out who does any of the things that light the fuse of a potential powder keg. That isn’t the point. Although sometimes it can be a little difficult to discern what, precisely the point is. Again, this may well be intentional. The problems, the reasons behind the turmoil under the surface, are in the film and real life not easy to pin down.

One truth is easy to pin down; men are singled out as the root of the problem. It is hard to argue against this, be it in the real world or in the film. Women, with a few exceptions, are not the one’s starting wars or even localized sectarian violence.

Interestingly the film begins and ends in a graveyard, one side Christian and one side Muslim. Apparently men in the village have killed one another before and even though they seem to coexist more or less peacefully. There is no real attempt at showing real closeness between the men—more tolerance. The women are another matter, they are friends; they joke and laugh together in a more intimate manner than the men. This isn’t to say the men initially seem hostile but just not close.

The film breaks out into song now and again (one funny song and one about love) in a way that will make the average American filmgoer roll their eyes. But this sort of scene is common in films from various places around the world; from Egypt to India. It seems odd to Americans in a film like this these days. But it wasn’t so long ago dramas and comedies alike had musical “numbers” in them.

This is not a great film but it is a good one.

When a film comes out of the Middle East and is directed by a woman there is a justifiable tendency to give more praise than is merited. In this case praise is merited—with caveats. The film meanders and frustrates. There are a lot of characters and they are hard to keep track of and hard to feel much for specifically. You can care as you would for any human being but there is not a great deal of character development.

It lacks focus but it is still a likeable film especially in the discussion it raises. Unfortunately the people who need to see films like this most are not likely to be in the audience. Nor would it get through to them if they were. And that is a shame.